Sam Ruby wrote:
> 3) Votes, by themselves, aren't prescriptive enough. The vote was
> 47-53. Now what? This is the weakest issue I have, as it can
> straightforwardly addressed by requiring a justification. But it still
> leaves a few loose ends: when to hold a vote? Only if you are sure of
> the results? Early and often? Can somebody just keep retrying until a
> vote passes?
Some years ago, I was elected foreman of a jury. Immediately
we entered the jury room, I called a vote. The jury was
divided 50:50. We discussed the case, and when everyone
had had a chance to speak, I called a second vote. We were
now divided 8:4. The process was repeated until we had
reached 11:1, at which point the one person not agreeing
with the majority acquiesced, and we were able to return
a unanimous decision. I cannot see why a similar process
should not lead to an equally amicable and satisfactory
outcome here.
Philip TAYLOR